Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Napster's Portable Music Player
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Re: Korean chic
Your post is so right on! Why, oh why, has the American consumer allowed himself to be sold the notion that good design is a frill? Good design can make your life so much better. After years of buying vegetable brushes (lived with some vegetarians for a while) which were cheap, and useless (after several uses the bristles would start to smash down), I plunked down good cash for a well-designed brush. Yup, it cost more than twice as much. Nope haven't had to replace therefore I've actually saved money. Plus rather than a skimpy little handle that never felt comfortable, it's got a grip that feels good and secure in my hand. The bristles have not matted down in several years of use. And it looks good.
I use this simple example to show that good design, which is one of Apple's strong points, increases utility. Beautiful stuff can make your life better. It's true.
Your post is so right on! Why, oh why, has the American consumer allowed himself to be sold the notion that good design is a frill? Good design can make your life so much better. After years of buying vegetable brushes (lived with some vegetarians for a while) which were cheap, and useless (after several uses the bristles would start to smash down), I plunked down good cash for a well-designed brush. Yup, it cost more than twice as much. Nope haven't had to replace therefore I've actually saved money. Plus rather than a skimpy little handle that never felt comfortable, it's got a grip that feels good and secure in my hand. The bristles have not matted down in several years of use. And it looks good.
I use this simple example to show that good design, which is one of Apple's strong points, increases utility. Beautiful stuff can make your life better. It's true.
Belly-laughs
macrumors 6502a
that is it
Oh, just what I have always wanted to do. Record the radio. "Oh, that Rush Limbaugh talk was so inspiring, if only I could have recorded it." 😛
zync
macrumors 68000
I agree....I used to love Napster, when it was NAPSTER and now that it's not, it sucks. It's incredibly of these people to think that the current Napster "brand" will be able to seel more than iPod. It's ugly compared to the iPod, though not too bad in itself and the top of the PC offerings. (I think it's funny we use PC - personal computer - to refer to x86 based machines.....I'm on a PC but mine's a PowerBook G4 🙂 ) Anyway, the people who remember the real Napster and loved it can see the difference and the people that hated it because of it's legality issues will still hate it because people are inherently ignorant and tend to not notice obvious changes because they're stuck in their previous notions of the way things were. Apple, on the other hand, has good "brand" and has the best non-subscription legal music download service and the best MP3 player. The other thing we're obviously forgetting, though I remember because I switched with the last PowerBook update, Apple has an obvious finess with products and software and especially INTEGRATION....no matter what features the YP-whatever has over the iPod it will never have the ease of use that the iPod basks in. It will never work well enough to not throw it at a wall or jump on it or hit it with a bat.
On the other hand he mentions this:
"Like the iPod, the Napster player can be upgraded via downloads from the company's Web site. Apple addressed similar early iPod complaints and added countless features through its many free firmware upgrades - so much so it's like getting a new machine for nothing. Hopefully, Samsung will follow the same path."
Hopefully they will NOT follow the same path because as I can recall I, and all the others that purchased iPods within a few months of the 3rd Gen update (I didn't read macrumors then or thinksecret so don't give me your "you should have known being a reader of these sites"), got SCREWED in terms of firmware upgrades, which were an advertised feature of the iPod. When they stop developing firmware for it and don't publish source so that the open source community can develop for it on their own, they revoke a feature they explicitly claimed the iPod had. So, no, let's hope that they don't follow in Apple's footsteps in this issue! (http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~clay4/iPod/ )
Sorry for the length of this post, I'm happy 🙂 and pissed 😡 all at the same time!
shadowfax
macrumors 603
Re: Re: Re: Korean chic
still, having classy design is certainly worth paying extra for. i hate cheesy logos, like tommy hilfiger and stuff. ralph lauren ruins it on some of their clothes too. but the polo shirts they make are great in terms of the logo: the little, barely recognizable but clearly there horseback rider raising his club in silhouette. much nicer than having "TOMMY" written across your chest.
i don't understand how stuff like that appeals to people.
while i totally agree with you, it's not the aesthetic design of your vegetable brush that made it last for years. it's the brute functionality of the design. they used better materials and put them together better. it may or may not look pretty, or useful. my old dell computer isn't pretty, but that thing took a beating, and took it well.
still, having classy design is certainly worth paying extra for. i hate cheesy logos, like tommy hilfiger and stuff. ralph lauren ruins it on some of their clothes too. but the polo shirts they make are great in terms of the logo: the little, barely recognizable but clearly there horseback rider raising his club in silhouette. much nicer than having "TOMMY" written across your chest.
i don't understand how stuff like that appeals to people.
zync
macrumors 68000
BTW I've dabbled in some design and the only thing I really find fault with it's design it's it's non-intuitive interface (like the fwb/back buttons being vertical instead of horizontal as they should be). This is what Apple excels at, making things work and making them intuitive.
It looks ok, but I'll stick to the iPod lineup. btw, go KnoxNews (I live in east TN if you cannot guess).🙂
Competition
Anyone giving any thought to this matter agrees that competition is good for consumers. I think it's a safe assumption to say that everyone here is a consumer and not a producer, so increased competition should be good for all of us. I understand that sometimes being a fan of something gets in the way of rational thinking. Everybody gets a little crazy over something that they are a big fan of every now and then. I'm not saying that the Napster player is a better player than the iPod, because, quite frankly, nobody really knows. I would really like to see somebody actually OWN both of these players and do a full compare/contrast of the two.
I think it's a safe bet that most people would think the Napster player is unattractive at best, but I have to agree with whoever said that looks are only worth so much. How the product looks is secondary to what the product does, in my mind. The biggest question on my mind right now is how well does the Napster player do what it's supposed to do. From what I've read, it does not perform well. Those are just product reviews, so they have be read with the understanding that they were written by a biased human being. I pay more attention to actual product specs than a review bvy someone who gets paid to review products.
So is it going to steal iPod's thunder? Initially following the Napster 2.0 launch, yes, I think it might take SOME sales from iPod, but nothing serious. I think that it COULD become serious, depending on how well it works with Napster 2.0. A completely different angle no one seems to have mentioned is the fact that we know little, if anything about Napster 2.0. For all we know, it could shake up the iTMS. I don't think any of us BELIEVE that it will, but the prospect is there.
Hopefully Apple will step up to the plate for us and do 1 of 2 things: make the iPod better (line-in, built-in FM transmitter, maybe even a color screen and built-in MPEG-4/DivX player?), or make the current models cheaper. Personally, I would expect to see a price drop or another bundle deal to pop up around the Christmas season, or maybe even as early as the beginning of November (so as to possibly take some buyers away from the Napster 2.0 launch.). I get the picture that Steve and Co. are just sitting back and watching what happens. If Napster 2.0 and it's accompanying hardware flops, they won't have to do anything. If it does really well, all they have to do is lop about $50 off the price of the iPods and bingo: instant price advantage for the consumer. This could get interesting, and if Apple DOES come through for us, there just might be a nice new 20 Gig iPod in my future...
Anyone giving any thought to this matter agrees that competition is good for consumers. I think it's a safe assumption to say that everyone here is a consumer and not a producer, so increased competition should be good for all of us. I understand that sometimes being a fan of something gets in the way of rational thinking. Everybody gets a little crazy over something that they are a big fan of every now and then. I'm not saying that the Napster player is a better player than the iPod, because, quite frankly, nobody really knows. I would really like to see somebody actually OWN both of these players and do a full compare/contrast of the two.
I think it's a safe bet that most people would think the Napster player is unattractive at best, but I have to agree with whoever said that looks are only worth so much. How the product looks is secondary to what the product does, in my mind. The biggest question on my mind right now is how well does the Napster player do what it's supposed to do. From what I've read, it does not perform well. Those are just product reviews, so they have be read with the understanding that they were written by a biased human being. I pay more attention to actual product specs than a review bvy someone who gets paid to review products.
So is it going to steal iPod's thunder? Initially following the Napster 2.0 launch, yes, I think it might take SOME sales from iPod, but nothing serious. I think that it COULD become serious, depending on how well it works with Napster 2.0. A completely different angle no one seems to have mentioned is the fact that we know little, if anything about Napster 2.0. For all we know, it could shake up the iTMS. I don't think any of us BELIEVE that it will, but the prospect is there.
Hopefully Apple will step up to the plate for us and do 1 of 2 things: make the iPod better (line-in, built-in FM transmitter, maybe even a color screen and built-in MPEG-4/DivX player?), or make the current models cheaper. Personally, I would expect to see a price drop or another bundle deal to pop up around the Christmas season, or maybe even as early as the beginning of November (so as to possibly take some buyers away from the Napster 2.0 launch.). I get the picture that Steve and Co. are just sitting back and watching what happens. If Napster 2.0 and it's accompanying hardware flops, they won't have to do anything. If it does really well, all they have to do is lop about $50 off the price of the iPods and bingo: instant price advantage for the consumer. This could get interesting, and if Apple DOES come through for us, there just might be a nice new 20 Gig iPod in my future...
my $.02
I own an iPod, one of the first actually still at 5G and still about 1/2 full with 620+ songs on it. I love it, but would like an new model for the smaller size and new features (I WANNA PLAY PARACHUTE)
I don't find the napster player ugly unlike most here, It's certainly not elegant and trendy like the iPod, but it's not ugly.
Reading the comments, many seem to think the two "killer" features on the napster unit are line in and FM reciever. I offer that these are rather trivial to add to the iPod.
Line in: We all know that Apple now officially supports recording via a microphone from Belkin that plugs in to the headphone jack and perhaps the remote connector. This means the iPod as either a line in or a mic in port up there. It is rather trivial to convert between the two with a small adapter cable. It's just a matter of finding out where the pins are in the iPod. Apple's most recent iPod update enabled recording from thus input.
FM recieve: Griffin produces a wonderful product called "iTrip" which is a programmable FM transmitter for the iPod. If the iPod can power a transmitter I see no reason it can't power an FM reciever. You would use the same station playlist to select the station to recieve. Using the audio-in feature of the recording add-on, you could have an FM reciever. All we need is a software update from Apple that allows you to send the line-in directly to the headphones instead of to the compressor/HD.
On a side note: I'm really sorry to see Belkin being the premier supplier for the new iPod accessories, Belkin just doesn't get it design wise. Compare Belkin's FM transmitters for the iPod with the iTrip, there's no comparison, the Belkin models look like a cludge and the iTrip looks sleek and elegant.
Personally, if I had a new iPod and needed voice recording, I'd wait for Griffin to make a unit. I can guarantee that it'll be better looking. I imagine an iTrip with microphones on the round sides.
I own an iPod, one of the first actually still at 5G and still about 1/2 full with 620+ songs on it. I love it, but would like an new model for the smaller size and new features (I WANNA PLAY PARACHUTE)
I don't find the napster player ugly unlike most here, It's certainly not elegant and trendy like the iPod, but it's not ugly.
Reading the comments, many seem to think the two "killer" features on the napster unit are line in and FM reciever. I offer that these are rather trivial to add to the iPod.
Line in: We all know that Apple now officially supports recording via a microphone from Belkin that plugs in to the headphone jack and perhaps the remote connector. This means the iPod as either a line in or a mic in port up there. It is rather trivial to convert between the two with a small adapter cable. It's just a matter of finding out where the pins are in the iPod. Apple's most recent iPod update enabled recording from thus input.
FM recieve: Griffin produces a wonderful product called "iTrip" which is a programmable FM transmitter for the iPod. If the iPod can power a transmitter I see no reason it can't power an FM reciever. You would use the same station playlist to select the station to recieve. Using the audio-in feature of the recording add-on, you could have an FM reciever. All we need is a software update from Apple that allows you to send the line-in directly to the headphones instead of to the compressor/HD.
On a side note: I'm really sorry to see Belkin being the premier supplier for the new iPod accessories, Belkin just doesn't get it design wise. Compare Belkin's FM transmitters for the iPod with the iTrip, there's no comparison, the Belkin models look like a cludge and the iTrip looks sleek and elegant.
Personally, if I had a new iPod and needed voice recording, I'd wait for Griffin to make a unit. I can guarantee that it'll be better looking. I imagine an iTrip with microphones on the round sides.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean chic
Because sometimes it's a pain to write he/she, himself/herself or him/or herself, etc. But of course the American consumer includes all genders.
Because sometimes it's a pain to write he/she, himself/herself or him/or herself, etc. But of course the American consumer includes all genders.
rueyeet
macrumors 65816
I just don't get the whole "Napster 2.0" thing. Usually the reason one buys up a well-known brand name is to trade off of the good will and recognition that name carries. But Napster, as a brand, was about sharing music, for free, and sticking it to the overpriced arrogant pop-hit manufacturing houses that the recording industry had become--and all with a dot-com startup run by a college boy who'd chanced to write the right program at the right time. First and foremost, it was about wanting the music without marketing gatekeepers to tell you what to love: just music fans sharing their music without corporate interference (and, unfortunately, also without artist compensation).
Having that brand used to peddle RIAA-sanctioned, DRM-restricted, paid downloads, much less paid music subscriptions, from only what the labels are willing to make available is a total reversal of everything Napster was about. It makes it into a symbol of the defeat of the upstart by the establishment, the substitution of hype for substance, the triumph of marketing over reality. How Roxio thinks that this will help them sell music, or this player, is beyond me.
As to the looks of the thing, it wouldn't be so bad if they designed something that didn't look so much like an iPod. It's not that ugly, especially compared to some of the other players out there, but does it have to look so much like it's trying to yell "iPod Killer"?
Without the brand issues, and the iPod-but-not-an-iPod look, it's probably a fair enough product. But selling a player with your music service's logo on it isn't enough: The service will have to be of comparable quality to iTunes, the player will have to be comparable to the iPod, and the integration between should approach that of the iTunes/iPod combination.
Having that brand used to peddle RIAA-sanctioned, DRM-restricted, paid downloads, much less paid music subscriptions, from only what the labels are willing to make available is a total reversal of everything Napster was about. It makes it into a symbol of the defeat of the upstart by the establishment, the substitution of hype for substance, the triumph of marketing over reality. How Roxio thinks that this will help them sell music, or this player, is beyond me.
As to the looks of the thing, it wouldn't be so bad if they designed something that didn't look so much like an iPod. It's not that ugly, especially compared to some of the other players out there, but does it have to look so much like it's trying to yell "iPod Killer"?
Without the brand issues, and the iPod-but-not-an-iPod look, it's probably a fair enough product. But selling a player with your music service's logo on it isn't enough: The service will have to be of comparable quality to iTunes, the player will have to be comparable to the iPod, and the integration between should approach that of the iTunes/iPod combination.
I guess I'm outside of the main demongraphic for these devices, but I'd be tempted by a device that did AM recording. I always seem to miss the few talk radio shows I listen to. Unfortunately, this just claims FM.
I don't see FM recording as being a big deal. Just listen for 10 minutes and your FM station will replay the 5 songs on their playlist. Oh joy!
I don't see FM recording as being a big deal. Just listen for 10 minutes and your FM station will replay the 5 songs on their playlist. Oh joy!
Machead III
macrumors 6502
I hope Apple doesn't try to build too much into the iPod... some people still just want it to play music, and other "features" would just add bulk and cost, as well as getting in the way of ease-of-use.
Plus, adding a built-in FM transmitter seems like it will make this product illegal in some countries.
Don't forget, the iPod as-is has become the number one selling MP3 player in the world by a large margin. Adding in extra features (and cost/bulk) in order to appeal to a niche (really, most of those owners just want music and they want it all to work easily and correctly the first time and every time) is NOT the path to success in the iPod's case. You may win one customer, but is it worth losing five because suddenly the product is too complicated for them?
Trust me, the market for divx video playback/FM recording/44Khz line-in is a LOT smaller than you think. I can't say this enough, the vast majority of consumers just want to play music.
Heck, there's a reason Apple has I/O for the iPod, so those people who really want a feature can turn to a third-party manufacturer. If there is a big enough market, it will be produced.
Plus, adding a built-in FM transmitter seems like it will make this product illegal in some countries.
Don't forget, the iPod as-is has become the number one selling MP3 player in the world by a large margin. Adding in extra features (and cost/bulk) in order to appeal to a niche (really, most of those owners just want music and they want it all to work easily and correctly the first time and every time) is NOT the path to success in the iPod's case. You may win one customer, but is it worth losing five because suddenly the product is too complicated for them?
Trust me, the market for divx video playback/FM recording/44Khz line-in is a LOT smaller than you think. I can't say this enough, the vast majority of consumers just want to play music.
Heck, there's a reason Apple has I/O for the iPod, so those people who really want a feature can turn to a third-party manufacturer. If there is a big enough market, it will be produced.
Re: my $.02
You're probably correct, but I'm hoping this is not the case. I hope that the A/D conversion takes place in the Belkin device and then somehow gets transferred to the iPod digitally.
Can anyone confirm this?
If the conversion occurs in the iPod, then we're limited to whatever specs Apple's engineers decided was good enough, which are likely not adequate for me. I need a stereo line-in, with at least 16bit/44.1khz fidelity.
You're probably correct, but I'm hoping this is not the case. I hope that the A/D conversion takes place in the Belkin device and then somehow gets transferred to the iPod digitally.
Can anyone confirm this?
If the conversion occurs in the iPod, then we're limited to whatever specs Apple's engineers decided was good enough, which are likely not adequate for me. I need a stereo line-in, with at least 16bit/44.1khz fidelity.
LagunaSol
macrumors 601
I agree that Griffin could do a much better job on these accessories. How about incorporating a microphone into the iTrip? That would be sweet. And that photo card reader by Belkin is awfully clunky. How about a nice little module with a mini USB plug for the camera? I could upload my photos to my iPod directly from the camera, rather than pulling out the memory card and inserting it in that big brick.
If you wanted to transfer files from the camera to an iPod device directly, you would run into the problem of different interfaces, and the device would have to be a lot smarter and more expensive. A standard card reader is a lot cheaper and easier, because cameras store pictures pretty much the same way but they do communicate differently via usb.
